The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. There's a clear consensus that the page does need some clean up work and possible reorganization, however, there's also an overwhelming consensus that this article does not qualify for deletion. (non-admin closure)Dusti*Let's talk!* 03:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article is merely a collection of news clippings with innuendo about improper funding sources for the Leave.EU campaign, and various Brits meeting various Russians. The lead states there is an ongoing investigation by the UK electoral commission, citing a source from November 2017. Did they post any conclusions? The article doesn't tell. Delete as WP:ATTACK and WP:NOTDIARY until some evidence of Russian interference in Brexit actually appears. — JFGtalk 22:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge – I think this is a WP:PAGEDECIDE question. The topic is significant enough to include in the encyclopedia and still discussed by reliable sources right up to this day (see Bloomberg and New Yorker sources below):
The Washington Post quoting David Miliband: The overwhelming evidence of malign and multiple Russian interventions in western democratic processes, including the Brexit referendum, have been designed to destabilize democratic rule.
Reuters: YouTube found no evidence of Russian interference in Brexit referendum
The New Yorker: In Parliament, however, both Labour and Conservative members have repeatedly questioned whether Banks’s dealings with the Russians in the lead-up to the referendum amounted to an influence campaign by a foreign power. In November, 2018, when the National Crime Agency investigation was announced, David Lammy, a Labour M.P., demanded that Britain’s departure from the E.U. be “put on hold until we know the extent of these crimes against our democracy.” Tom Watson, the deputy leader of the Labour Party, has called for a “Mueller-style inquiry” into whether the “referendum result was stolen.” The Conservative M.P. Damian Collins has demanded a broader inquiry into Russian interference in British affairs.
Bloomberg: Social media influence campaigns or direct cyber attacks are already thought to have impacted key votes such as the U.S. election in 2016 and the U.K’s Brexit referendum
Newsweek: British MP demands 'Mueller-style' investigation into Brexit over Russia inteference
The Guardian: Police will not examine claims of Russian meddling in Brexit vote
Kyiv Post: Lawyers to cite Russian interference in major Brexit legal challenge
Sky News (opinion): Sky Views: UK has a duty to investigate potential Russian interference
Al Jazeera (opinion): Britain needs its own Mueller investigation: The British political elite has ignored mounting evidence of interference and illegality in the Brexit vote ... [MPs'] recent report spoke of evidence of "Russian state-sponsored attempts to influence elections in the US and the UK through social media, efforts of private companies to do the same, and law-breaking by certain Leave campaign groups in the UK's EU referendum in their use of social media". and 2: Was the Brexit vote free and fair? We discuss data theft, Russian interference, and illegal campaign spending during the Brexit referendum
That said, there are definitely problems with it as written per nom, and I'm not sure if it should remain a stand alone article or be merged with a redirect to another article. I think either would be fine. Levivich 23:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The House of Commons select committee documented extensive evidence of "unconventional war" in its interim report. Its final report is here, with the subchapter heading "Foreign influence in political campaigns". It then says:
“
There has been clear and proven Russian influence in foreign elections, and we highlighted evidence in our Interim Report of such attempts in the EU Referendum.
”
This said, I've no idea why the article was changed to bullet points. It needs updating, not deletion. The basis for this nomination is mistaken. Wikidea 10:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant chapter in the UK report talks mostly about the Skripal affair and financial dealings of Arron Banks; while it notes some Russian activity on Twitter, it does not reach any conclusions regarding a potential Russian influence on Brexit. — JFGtalk 04:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true but I think it's WP:OR and irrelevant here. Any evaluation of whether the report actually supports/proves/establishes/shows anything is beside the point. It's a topic that has received significant coverage from multiple independent reliable secondary sources; it should have an article or at least a redirect. The content should represent all significant viewpoints, and per the list of 10 RSes above, there are at least two significant viewpoints ("evidence" and "no evidence"). Levivich 05:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: Note: I have partially restored the sentence user:Levivich deleted, as the sentences didn't make as much sense without the preceding sentence. I see the strong Keep consensus is somewhat validating as to why I would have described the history of the Timelines as I did. My intent was to be helpful and concise to the AfD reviewers. Maybe this history was unnecessary? I don't know what people are expected to write at these. X1\ (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of significant and reliable sources to establish notability.Charles (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Important, notable, and well-sourced. Thepatioisdirty (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Article could be improved to eliminate "weasel words", but the sourcing is strong and the subject very notable (frighteningly so).TH1980 (talk) 01:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic of this article readily meets the general requirements for notability, and there's clearly plenty of scope for a substantial article on this topic, so merging it elsewhere doesn't make much sense. The content needs work, but that's not in itself a case for deletion. Alarichall (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not only this is well sourced and highly notable subject, that was one of the most successful operations by Russian intelligence in recent times. They hurt UK so bad... My very best wishes (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of it being proved or not, I'll agree with the other users that a merge is not necessary, considering the availability of sources. Garlicolive (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.